James North writes with concerns making the GT work for the poor—for those with less to gift:”I think the ‘urgency’ issue is big factor. I wonder if that ‘urgency’ might be something created by a third party in the GT, like a Giftor perhaps, so as to offset any claims to urgency where there actually isn’t. I “need” a Ferrari, for example :o)
It’s clear to me that an intense focus on the words, descriptions and concept/processes of “wealth”, “gift and give”, “rich”, “poor” are required to establish the solid philosophical basis for the GT.
Timothy, I would drop use of the word “help” and “helping” and adopt instead the word “assist” and “assisting”. This stems from the basis of personal power, and empowerment, where “I can do it….” AND your assistance I could use, rather than “I’m broken, useless, need fixing……” please help me.”
Chris Lucas raises similar concerns: “One thing I’ve not seen made explicit, either here or anywhere else, is the dynamic effects of successful exchanges on the poor. Whereas our capitalist dogma takes the attitude that having very rich people improves the lot for the poor (i.e. they become richer also by spin-off effects) this neglects
the effects on prices of basics which have the effect of making the poor worst off overall.
To illustrate, the wages in the States are very much higher than in India, but food costs in India are also very much lower, so the poor can afford to buy more food (by far) for the dollar than in the States, we have a balance. But back in the States those equally poor cannot afford the food at the same level, since farmers have raised the prices (following market rules) to what the rich can afford to pay. Thus as the rich get richer (say 10% a year), the average price level rises faster (maybe 5% pA) than the incomes of the poor (which may be no increase) and they become worst off as a result. An example from the U.K. is house prices in London. Here big bonuses paid to financial traders allow them to pay silly prices for property, thus all prices soar leaving locals unable to buy houses in their own area. They have to move further away and suffer further time and money losses by travelling back to work – a decrease in their QOL not due
to their own actions.
Although this isn’t a problem in GT as such, the dynamics of that may have the same negative effects on those who I’m sure we would agree need to benefit the most. Giving to those who have seems a flawed dynamic in principle.